MARCH/APRIL 2016 | VOL. 26, NO. 3–4
The “Anthropocene” epoch:
Scientific decision or political statement?
GSA TODAY (ISSN 1052-5173 USPS 0456-530) prints news
and information for more than 26,000 GSA member readers
and subscribing libraries, with 11 monthly issues (March/
April is a combined issue). GSA TODAY is published by The
Geological Society of America® Inc. (GSA) with offices at
3300 Penrose Place, Boulder, Colorado, USA, and a mailing address of P.O. Box 9140, Boulder, CO 80301-9140, USA.
GSA provides this and other forums for the presentation
of diverse opinions and positions by scientists worldwide,
regardless of race, citizenship, gender, sexual orientation,
religion, or political viewpoint. Opinions presented in this
publication do not reflect official positions of the Society.
© 2016 The Geological Society of America Inc. All rights
reserved. Copyright not claimed on content prepared
wholly by U.S. government employees within the scope of
their employment. Individual scientists are hereby granted
permission, without fees or request to GSA, to use a single
figure, table, and/or brief paragraph of text in subsequent
work and to make/print unlimited copies of items in GSA
TODAY for noncommercial use in classrooms to further
education and science. In addition, an author has the right
to use his or her article or a portion of the article in a thesis
or dissertation without requesting permission from GSA,
provided the bibliographic citation and the GSA copyright
credit line are given on the appropriate pages. For any
other use, contact [email protected]
Subscriptions: GSA members: Contact GSA Sales & Service,
+1-888-443-4472; +1-303-357-1000 option 3; [email protected] for information and/or to place a claim for
non-receipt or damaged copies. Nonmembers and institutions:
GSA TODAY is US$92/yr; to subscribe, or for claims for
non-receipt and damaged copies, contact [email protected] Claims are honored for one year; please
allow sufficient delivery time for overseas copies. Periodicals postage paid at Boulder, Colorado, USA, and at
additional mailing offices. Postmaster: Send address
changes to GSA Sales & Service, P.O. Box 9140, Boulder,
CO 80301-9140.
Executive Director and Publisher: Vicki S. McConnell
Science Editors: Steven Whitmeyer, James Madison
University Dept. of Geology & Environmental Science,
800 S. Main Street, MSC 6903, Harrisonburg, VA 22807,
USA, [email protected]; Gerald Dickens, Rice University
School of Earth Science, MS-126, 6100 Main Street,
Houston, Texas 77005, USA, [email protected]
Managing Editor: Kristen “Kea” Giles, [email protected],
[email protected]
Graphics Production: Margo McGrew
Advertising (classifieds & display): Ann Crawford,
+1-800-472-1988 ext. 1053; +1-303-357-1053; Fax: +1-303357-1070; [email protected]; [email protected]
GSA Online:
Printed in the USA using pure soy inks.
Featured Articles
The “Anthropocene” epoch: Scientific decision
or political statement?
Stanley C. Finney and Lucy E. Edwards
Cover: See related article, p. 4–10.
36 Building a coalition of concerned stakeholders to guide watershed decisions
J.M.H. Cockburn and J.I. Garver
GSA News
The “Anthropocene” epoch: Scientific decision or
political statement?
Stanley C. Finney 1, Dept. of Geological Sciences, California
State University at Long Beach, Long Beach, California 90277,
USA; and Lucy E. Edwards 2, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston,
Virginia 20192, USA
The proposal for the “Anthropocene” epoch as a formal unit of
the geologic time scale has received extensive attention in scientific and public media. However, most articles on the
Anthropocene misrepresent the nature of the units of the
International Chronostratigraphic Chart, which is produced by
the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS) and serves as
the basis for the geologic time scale. The stratigraphic record of
the Anthropocene is minimal, especially with its recently
proposed beginning in 1945; it is that of a human lifespan, and
that definition relegates considerable anthropogenic change to a
“pre-Anthropocene.” The utility of the Anthropocene requires
careful consideration by its various potential users. Its concept is
fundamentally different from the chronostratigraphic units that
are established by ICS in that the documentation and study of the
human impact on the Earth system are based more on direct
human observation than on a stratigraphic record. The drive to
officially recognize the Anthropocene may, in fact, be political
rather than scientific.
Since the publication in GSA Today of the article titled, “Are we
now living in the Anthropocene?” (Zalasiewicz et al., 2008), the
proposal that a new epoch in the geologic time scale called the
“Anthropocene” be established has received greatly increasing
attention in both scientific and public media (e.g., Nature,
Scientific American, Science, Geoscientist, The New York Times,
Los Angeles Times, The Economist, National Geographic, Der Spiegel
online, to name a few). This attention arises from the desire by
some for official recognition of the impact of humans on the
Earth system, specifically its surface environments. A 2011 editorial in Nature asked, “Geologists are used to dealing with heavy
subjects, so who better to decide on one of the more profound
debates of the time: does human impact on the planet deserve to
be officially recognized? Are we living in a new geological
epoch—the Anthropocene?” The editorial answered the questions as follows:
GSA Today, v. 26, no. 3–4, doi: 10.1130/GSATG270A.1.
Chair, International Commission on Stratigraphy
Commissioner, North American Commission on Stratigraphic Nomenclature
Official recognition of the concept would invite crossdisciplinary science. And it would encourage a mindset
that will be important not only to fully understand the
transformation now occurring but to take action to
control it. … Humans may yet ensure that these early
years of the Anthropocene are a geological glitch and not
just a prelude to a far more severe disruption. But the
first step is to recognize, as the term Anthropocene
invites us to do, that we are in the driver’s seat. (p. 254)
That editorial, as with most articles on the Anthropocene, did
not consider the mission of the International Commission on
Stratigraphy (ICS), nor did it present an understanding of the
nature of the units of the International Chronostratigraphic Chart
on which the units of the geologic time scale are based. We take
this opportunity to provide the greater geoscience community
with an understanding of the charge of the International
Commission on Stratigraphy and an appreciation of the history
and nature of the units of the International Chronostratigraphic
Chart. We compare the concept of Anthropocene to that of the
systems, series, and stages of the International
Chronostratigraphic Chart. We examine its usefulness as a unit
defined by the criteria in the International Stratigraphic Guide
We address the question of whether or not the International
Commission on Stratigraphy is being asked to make what is in
effect a political statement.
The ICS, the largest constituent scientific body in the
International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS), is composed
of a three-person executive board and 16 subcommissions, each
with ~20 voting members, who together represent more than
50 countries. Its charge is to define a single hierarchal set of global
chronostratigraphic units with precisely defined boundaries that
can be correlated as widely as possible. Boundaries are selected at
levels that best set limits to the chronostratigraphic unit that they
delimit, and boundary definition employs the concept of Global
Standard Stratotype Section and Point (GSSP) as set out in the
International Stratigraphic Guide (Salvador, 1994) and in revised
ICS guidelines (Remane et al., 1996). The web-based archive of
the chronostratigraphic units and GSSPs approved by ICS and
Stage D
Definition by boundary-stratotypes
Stage D
? Gap
Stage C
Stage C
Stage B
Stage B
? Gap
Stage A
Stage A
Figure 1. Advantage of defining chronostratigraphic units (stages) by lower
boundary-stratotypes rather than by unit-stratotypes. Under boundarystratotypes a specific level (horizontal dashed line) within a stratotype section
(solid vertical line) serves to define the base of the superjacent unit and the top
of the subjacent unit. Capital letters refer to widely separated type localities.
Modified from Salvador (1994, their fig. 14).
ratified by IUGS is the ICS International Chronostratigraphic
Chart and the Table of GSSPs, which are linked to the publications
of the ratified GSSP proposals (
Most of the systems, series, and stages of the ICS International
Chronostratigraphic Chart were first defined from type sections or
type areas in Europe, and they served as the basis for temporally
correlating stratified Phanerozoic rocks worldwide primarily on
their paleontological content. Although the traditional chronostratigraphic units were initially characterized by and correlated on the
biostratigraphy of macrofossils, the biostratigraphy of microfossils
became more widely used because they offered higher resolution and
more widespread correlation. More recently, records of magnetostratigraphy, chemostratigraphy, cyclostratigraphy, and sequence
stratigraphy have been established for most units, thus adding more
varied and global stratigraphic signals for correlation. Thus, the
concept of chronostratigraphic units today is a composite of stratigraphic information from successions worldwide.
When the traditional units were first named, boundaries
between successive units were rarely defined. In fact, many units
in type areas are bounded above or below by unconformities or
covered intervals, and type areas of successive units are often at
different locations. With continued study in type areas, with the
study of stratigraphic successions elsewhere, and with the
increased resolution of long-distance correlation, many successive
chronostratigraphic units were discovered to either overlap or
to be separated by gaps (Fig. 1). Furthermore, because of paleoecological and paleogeographical limits to the fossil content on
which the units were recognized and because of the lack of
specific boundaries, different interpretations of the stratigraphic
extent and status were accorded to the same unit from one
region to another, and multiple sets of regional series and stages
were established for many systems (e.g., Webby, 1998). These
deficiencies complicated stratigraphic nomenclature and
hindered communication.
Since the time of Nicolas Steno, those who observed stratified
rocks and considered the processes by which they formed accepted
the concept that stratigraphic successions recorded the passage of
time. Present-day bodies of strata are distinguished from the
interval of time in the past when they accumulated as sediment by
the use of two sets of terms. Chronostratigraphic terms apply to
rock units (system, series, and stage), and geochronologic terms
apply to time units (period, epoch, and age). These differences in
terminology and concepts are presented in all stratigraphic guides
and codes, even in first-year historical geology textbooks, and date
to the 2nd International Geologic Congress in Bologna in 1881
(Vai, 2004).
A GSSP defines a stratigraphic boundary between two successive chronostratigraphic units in a single, continuous stratigraphic
section. It sets the lower limit to the content of stratigraphic
signals in a designated unit; hence, the upper limit to the content
of the subjacent unit. The detailed succession of stratigraphic
signals through the boundary interval is the basis for interpreting
the correlation of that boundary into successions at other localities. The correlation of boundaries between successions in
different localities is no different from correlating various stratigraphic levels or intervals within a unit, except that a GSSP is preferably placed at a stratigraphic level that provides the best set of
stratigraphic signals for worldwide correlation. Use of lowerboundary GSSPs results in a succession of units between which
there are no gaps and no overlaps (Fig. 1). A proposal for a GSSP is
evaluated on several criteria (Remane et al., 1996), with the most
important being that the boundary interval in the stratotype
section has a diversity of stratigraphic signals that serve as the
reference for the most reliable long distance correlation possible.
Since the first GSSP was ratified in 1972 for the boundary
between the Silurian and Devonian systems, 62 of the 100
boundary levels that define the stages, series, and systems of the
ICS Chart (download from have ratified
GSSPs. Most often, these sites are marked with an explanatory
panel, a formal plaque (Fig. 2), and a “golden spike” (Fig. 3).
Figure 2. Plaque that marks the Global Standard Stratotype Section and Point
(GSSP) for the base of the Thanetian Stage (Paleocene Series, Paleogene
System) at Zumaia, the Basque Region, Spain.
Definition by unit-stratotypes
Placement of
Publication of
If ratified
IUGS Executive Committee
If ≥60% majority yes vote
ICS Bureau: ICS Executive + all Subcommission Chairs
If ≥60% majority yes vote
Figure 3. Top of golden spike emplaced in bed that is the Global Standard
Stratotype Section and Point (GSSP) for the Thanetian Stage. Length of “rock
hammer” is 5 cm.
They are regarded as international geostandards, and their protection and future scientific study are encouraged. Each one serves as
the primary definition of a boundary, which is the succession of
stratigraphic signals in a boundary interval and the single signal at
the stratigraphic level at which the boundary is placed. Locating
the boundary in stratigraphic successions elsewhere is an interpretation made to the standard reference, the GSSP, after evaluation
of all stratigraphic signals. The formal process of ratification of a
GSSP (Fig. 4) begins with preparation of a written proposal by a
working group comprised of specialists on the boundary interval.
Development of a formal proposal requires extensive investigations of candidate stratotype sections and boundary levels worldwide. Following consensus approval of a proposal by the working
group, it is then considered by the voting members of the relevant
ICS subcommission. If approved by the subcommission, the
proposal is forwarded to the ICS executive for consideration and
voting by the ICS executive and the chairs of the 16 subcommissions. If approved at this level, the proposal is forwarded to the
IUGS Executive Committee for ratification. Following ratification, the GSSP proposal must be published and posted on the ICS
website, and the GSSP must be marked. The rigorous criteria on
which a GSSP proposal is evaluated and the several levels of evaluation and consideration by which it is approved and ratified give
validity and authority to ratified GSSPs as international
A geochronologic unit (period, epoch, age) is the time interval
during which the strata of a chronostratigraphic unit accumulated
(Salvador, 1994). Geologic and biologic events and settings of the
past, recorded in and interpreted from the rock record, are
expressed in terms of geochronologic units. Once two successive
GSSPs have been ratified, all the rocks that can be correlated to
levels between the GSSPs are the stratigraphic record from which
past events in Earth’s history are interpreted for that interval of
time. Geochronologic terms yield a relative geologic time scale,
and calibrated ages make up a numerical geologic time scale.
Calibrated numerical ages do not define the boundaries; they are
subject to refinement and recalibration. It is the GSSP, a specific
Working Group
GSSP Proposal: section and point
Figure 4. Workflow for approval and ratification of a Global Standard
Stratotype Section and Point (GSSP) proposal. Extensive discussion and
evaluation occurs at the level of the working group, subcommission, and
International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS) Bureau. If approved at these
successive levels, a proposal is forwarded to the International Union of
Geological Sciences (IUGS) for ratification. This process is also followed for
other ICS decisions on standardization, such as approval of names of formal
units, of revisions to the units, and to revision or replacement of GSSPs.
stratigraphic level in a stratotype section, that defines the boundary
and to which numerical ages are calibrated to varying degrees
of certainty.
The term Anthropocene is widely used. In its latest iteration, it
refers to the present, when human impact on Earth’s surface,
atmosphere, and hydrosphere has been deemed to be global.
International organizations; national, regional, and local governments; non-governmental organizations; and industries have
taken steps to mitigate and remediate the impact where its nature
is judged to be deleterious. Nevertheless, human impact is
immense and potentially increasing. But, the question is: Should
the Anthropocene be approved by ICS and ratified by IUGS as an
official unit of the ICS International Chronostratigraphic Chart?
In contrast to all other units of the ICS chart, the concept of
the Anthropocene did not derive from the stratigraphic record.
It arose with Paul Crutzen (2002), a Nobel Laureate in Chemistry,
who suggested that because of a greatly increased human impact
on the Earth system, we had entered a new epoch, for which he
proposed the term Anthropocene. Zalasiewicz et al. (2008)
considered the effects referred to by Crutzen and raised the question of whether the effects justified the need for a new term, and
if so, where and how its boundary might be placed. The ICS
Subcommission on Quaternary Stratigraphy established a
The Anthropocene working group has focused on defining the
base or beginning of the Anthropocene, and several recent proposals
have been published (e.g., Lewis and Maslin, 2015). That of
Zalasiewicz et al. (2015), co-authored with 25 other members of the
Anthropocene working group, sets a GSSA (Global Standard
Stratigraphic Age) for the Anthropocene as 1945, the year of the first
nuclear bomb explosion. Regrettably, focusing on the definition of
the beginning of the Anthropocene can result in the lack of consideration of its stratigraphic content and its concept. It conveys the
opinion that units of the geologic time scale are defined solely by
their beginnings, rather than their content.
Zalasiewicz et al. (2004, p. 1) argued that the distinction
between chronostratigraphic and geochronologic units is no
longer necessary because of the widespread adoption of GSSPs “in
defining intervals of geologic time within rock strata.” Because
GSSPs are placed at stratigraphic horizons that also represent
specific points in time, two successive GSSPs define an interval of
time that is a geochronologic unit (period, epoch, age), and all
strata interpreted as deposited during that interval of time would
comprise the corresponding chronostratigraphic unit (system,
series, stage). The difference between this concept and that
espoused in the International Stratigraphic Guide (Salvador,
1994)—that chronostratigraphic units and their boundaries serve
to define corresponding geochronologic units—is subtle, yet
important. It is stratigraphic content that allows for the recognition and correlation of a chronostratigraphic unit. Most correlations are made within units and not to their boundaries. The
GSSP serves to set a limit on the stratigraphic content of a unit; it
defines a boundary, not a unit. Formal systems, series, and stages
have been recognized since 1881, yet the first GSSP was not ratified
until 1972. Obviously chronostratigraphic units and their corresponding geochronologic units were used long before there were
GSSPs. The International Stratigraphic Guide (Salvador, 1994)
provides specific criteria for definition of chronostratigraphic units,
but it provides no guidelines whatsoever for defining geochronologic
units other than the intervals of time represented by the corresponding chronostratigraphic units. Furthermore, the guide
discusses GSSPs only with regard to defining boundaries of chronostratigraphic units and not to defining beginnings or ends of
geochronologic units. For these reasons, the concept and definition
of chronostratigraphic units of Zalasiewicz et al. (2004), which are
further presented in Zalasiewicz et al. (2008, 2011, 2015), are not
consistent with the history of these units nor with the International
Stratigraphic Guide.
The lower boundary of the Cretaceous System is not yet defined
by a GSSP, and neither are the Lower Cretaceous Series and its
constituent stages (Berriasian, Valanginian, Hauterivian,
Barremian, Aptian, and Albian). Nevertheless, these are traditional units of the ICS Chart and thus are units of the geologic
time scale. They have content. They can be correlated into stratigraphic successions worldwide. They have long been used worldwide. Their deficiency is that limits have not been formally set for
their stratigraphic content. At an ICS workshop in 2010, the
proposal of Zalasiewicz et al. (2004) was considered at length and
rejected unanimously by the ICS voting members, who considered
the distinction as necessary and obvious. It is of concern that this
rejected concept is being followed by the Anthropocene working
group and promoted in both scientific and public media.
The focus of proponents on the beginning of the Anthropocene
has led to a misrepresentation by the leaders of the working group
in the lead article (Waters et al., 2014b) of A Stratigraphical Basis
for the Anthropocene (Waters et al., 2014a). The second paragraph
states, “J. Phillips used the major mass extinction at the end of the
Permian in 1840 to recognize the beginning of both the Triassic
Period and of the Mesozoic Era.” This statement is false. The
Triassic was established in 1837, and Phillips (1840) focused on the
term Palaeozoic. The term Mesozoic was used only once in a list
contained within parentheses. In 1841, Phillips mentioned the
Mesozoic only in one sentence:
The lower of these …, the Magnesian Limestone formation,
contains corals, brachiopoda, and fishes, so extremely
similar in detail or analogous in their general history to the
corresponding forms of the mountain-limestone, that it is
impossible in any fair classification to sever this group of fossils
from the Palæozoic series; while, on the other hand,
the upper of the two formations, the Red-Sandstone
and Keuper series, presents almost no resemblance to the
older, but a decided analogy to the newer, or, as we wish
to call it, Mesozoic series of the Oolites. (p. 355)
Later, in his book Life on Earth: Its Origin and Succession,
Phillips (1860, p. 64) described the prevalent fauna in each system
as rising to a maximum and dying away to a final minimum to be
working group in 2009 to consider these questions. Since then,
discussion of the Anthropocene has been extensive, with articles
in both scientific publications and the public media, as well as in
the greater academic sphere, including the social sciences and the
legal community.
Summaries of anthropogenic changes to the Earth system and
their occurrence in the stratigraphic record can be found in
Zalasiewicz et al. (2008, 2011) and Waters et al. (2014a, 2014b).
That stratigraphic record is negligible (Walker et al., 2015), especially with a boundary set at 1945, as recently proposed by the
Anthropocene working group (Zalasiewicz et al., 2015). Most of
the stratigraphic records mentioned are potential records that
might appear in the future; they are based on predictions. Human
structures, excavations, boreholes, bioturbation of soils (agriculture) and the sea floor (drag net fishing) are not strata. Made
ground, refuse piles, mine dumps, and leach pads are made by
humans rather than by natural sedimentation. The strata with
records of anthropogenic change are speleothems, ice cores, and
non-lithified sediments of rivers, marshes, lakes, coasts, and the
ocean floor. In most of these depositional settings, it would be
difficult to distinguish the upper few centimeters of sediment
from the underlying Holocene, or sediment that has accumulated
versus that that is in transit. Published logs with geochemical
signatures of human impact are at most a few tens of centimeters
thick (Nozaki et al., 1978; Al-Rousan et al., 2004; Marshall et al.,
2007). Locating a boundary at 1945 would be difficult for anthropogenic isotope shifts in greenhouse gases that have been rising
for 100 years or more (Wolff, 2014).
followed again in the next system, with “the most remarkable of
these zones of least life being the two that separate the Palaeozoic
from the Mesozoic and the Mesozoic from the Cenozoic.”
Nowhere does Phillips (1860) mention a mass extinction as
marking the beginning of the Triassic, and Phillips actually used
his compilation of fossil data to argue against the theory of
natural selection proposed the previous year by Charles Darwin.
Yet, Waters et al. (2014b) cites Phillips (1840) to assert that
human-induced changes to the stratigraphic record, although
they are still yet to be recorded, are reason enough for officially
recognizing the Anthropocene as a new unit on the geologic time
scale. In fact, many, if not most, of the ratified GSSPs are at stratigraphic levels that do not represent major changes to the Earth
system, whether geologic or biologic. For example, the bases of the
Ordovician, Devonian, Carboniferous, and Permian systems are
placed at the lowest occurrences of single graptolite or conodont
species. They were chosen at stratigraphic levels within boundary
intervals that offered the best potential for reliable, worldwide
correlation. Waters et al. (2014b) also stated that units have historically been defined on significant events, when in reality it is the
lack of definition of boundaries that has long plagued longdistance correlation of chronostratigraphic units. It is of concern
that the history and nature of chronostratigraphic units have not
been fairly conveyed.
Justification for defining the Anthropocene with a GSSA is
found in the Holocene and the Precambrian. Repeated statements
by Zalasiewicz et al. (2008, 2011, 2015) that the Holocene was
defined by a GSSA are misleading. A formal definition of the
Holocene with its base (beginning) defined by a GSSA was never
approved by ICS nor ratified by IUGS; a numerical age of 10,000
C yr B.P. was simply adopted by convention by the INQUA
Holocene Commission, but it was then considered temporary
(Walker et al., 2015). For the Precambrian, ICS adopted a set of
numerical ages for the definition of boundaries between Archean
and Proterozoic Eons and between their constituent eras (Remane
et al., 1996). However, during these eons and eras, voluminous
stratigraphic records accumulated and extensive bodies of
plutonic and metamorphic rock were generated. Rock-based
temporal classifications were established for each shield area long
ago, but global units defined by isotopic ages allowed for a global
standard time scale. The GSSAs were set at large round numbers,
but those exact values cannot be located precisely in stratigraphic
sections. Remane et al. (1996) considered them as theoretical
postulates and pointed out their status only for boundary definition in the Precambrian. Today, the ICS Subcommission on
Precambrian Stratigraphy is striving to replace the units defined
by GSSAs with units defined by GSSPs, considering the latter to be
more useful (Van Kranendonk et al., 2008). It is of concern that
proponents of the Anthropocene do not fully explain the origin
and concept of GSSAs.
The Anthropocene, as currently popularized, is fundamentally
different from the chronostratigraphic units that are the charge of
the ICS. It is the present and future versus the past. Events and
effects and impact are observed, measured, and documented by
humans as they occur and are dated with the Gregorian calendar
(Wolff, 2014), and geologic events are too (e.g., 1906 San Francisco
earthquake, 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens). The stratigraphic
record is the past. It is studied in order to interpret past events in
Earth’s history, and these interpretations require the application
of stratigraphic techniques, concepts, and principles. In spite of
this detachment of the Anthropocene from the concept and use of
chronostratigraphic units, the term Anthropocene may have
utility. It is popular among a diverse scientific community, social
scientists, and the media. It does raise awareness that, as with
anthropogenic climate change, the human impact on the Earth
system is global, and that human impact may have initiated a
cascade of events that will greatly alter Earth’s surface, oceans,
and atmosphere.
The term Anthropocene is of similar character to the term
Renaissance. Both refer to richly documented, revolutionary,
human activities that are dated in the Gregorian calendar. Both
carry significant connotation. Although a precise date in calendar
years is not specified for the Renaissance, the term is established
and conveys a singular meaning of the content of that period,
where it began, how it evolved, and how it spread. The same
applies to Anthropocene if its concept is the human impact on
Earth’s surface. Without doubt, scholars have argued over the
singular human creation, whether in literature, architecture, or
art, that initiated the Renaissance, but there is no need to define
its beginning, because the dates and locations of the creations are
well established. Furthermore, it would be contrary to current
practice to define its beginning at a single point in time because it
is a cultural movement that is not tied to a single date. And the
same is true for the Anthropocene, whether it is a hydroelectric
dam constructed in the Italian Alps, a gold mine in South Africa,
the dramatic increase in carbon combustion during the Industrial
Revolution, the growth of a megacity, the clearing of rain forests,
or the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere and the resulting
increase in global surface temperatures. Is putting an official
beginning on the Anthropocene any more advantageous than on
the Renaissance? The only reason appears to be to give it credence
as a unit of the geologic time scale.
The year 1945, proposed as the beginning of the Anthropocene,
was selected because it marks the first atomic bomb explosion that
initiated a period of atmospheric testing, the results of which are
seen in radionuclides in ice cores and lake cores. The radionuclides in cores can be taken as the stratigraphic signal that most
closely coincides with what has been termed the great acceleration
of human impact on the Earth system (Steffen et al., 2007). That
stratigraphic signal first becomes evident in deposits from 1952 to
1960, the years of extensive atmospheric testing of nuclear bombs
(Waters et al., 2015). Clearly, much of the human impact used as
evidence of the Anthropocene predates 1945 (e.g., Zalasiewicz et
al., 2011; Waters et al., 2014b). The same would be the case with
the term Renaissance, if it was arbitrarily but objectively defined
by the year 1500, when the influence of the Renaissance spread
from Italy to the rest of Europe. It would result in the first works
of the Renaissance being relegated to the Middle Ages. In this
vein, Ruddiman et al. (2015) questioned whether or not it makes
sense to define the start of the human-dominated time long after
deforestation and agriculture changed the landscape and after
greenhouse gases had been rising due to agricultural and industrial emissions. Proponents of the Anthropocene are thus left with
the question of whether or not a beginning of the Anthropocene
should be set and, if so, when. They must also consider how this
affects the utility of the term as used not just by stratigraphers but
When we explain the fundamental difference of the
Anthropocene from the chronostratigraphic units established by
the International Commission on Stratigraphy to proponents for
its recognition, they often reply that the human impact on the
Earth system must be officially recognized, if for no other reason
than to make the public and governmental agencies aware of that
impact. Or, as the editorial in Nature (2011) argued, official recognition would encourage cross-disciplinary science and a
“mindset” to understand and to take control of the current transformation. However, it is political action that is required to meet
the ultimate goals of ameliorating human impact, which raises the
question of the ICS making a political statement. Pope Francis has
spoken out about the human-induced impact on the Earth
system—so too have leaders of many nations, the United Nations,
and numerous non-governmental organizations. In California,
Governor Jerry Brown has initiated and promoted many legislative actions with the goal of ameliorating human-induced impact.
Is the role of the ICS to make such a political statement? Would
official recognition of the term Anthropocene as a unit of the ICS
Chart realistically have any effect on promoting cross-disciplinary
science or recognizing that we are in the driver’s seat as Nature
editorialized? Or, is that not already the case?
The evolution of vascular land plants and their spread across
the continents from late in the Devonian to early in the Permian
completely altered Earth’s surface, left a significant stratigraphic
record, and dramatically altered CO2 and O2 concentrations in
the atmosphere and oceans far greater than humans are projected
to do (Berner and Canfield, 1989; Berner, 1998). Yet there is no
drive to name a unit in the ICS Chart that formally recognizes
that profound and irreversible change to the Earth system.
Perhaps promotion of the Anthropocene is anthropocentric as
well as political?
The “Atomic Age,” a term coined by The New York Times journalist William L. Lawrence in September 1946, has an identical
boundary and content to the Anthropocene proposal of
Zalasiewicz et al. (2015). By rights, the Atomic Age has nomenclatural priority. If the Anthropocene is not a political statement,
those who value priority should prefer the Atomic Age.
No formal, written proposal has yet been submitted by the
Anthropocene working group to the ICS Subcommission on
Quaternary Stratigraphy. Until that happens, the ICS and the
Quaternary Subcommission have nothing to consider, in spite of
all that has been published by the members of the working group
and by others in the scientific and public media. Assuming a
formal proposal is made that recommends approval of an
Anthropocene unit and boundary definition, that proposal will
have to provide a detailed description of the stratigraphic content
of the unit and show correlation of the lower-boundary GSSP to
lake cores, ice cores, and other stratigraphic records from
geographically widespread locations. It should also address
questions on the concept, basis, and stratigraphic utility of the
unit, such as those raised here and by Finney (2014), Head and
Gibbard (2015), and Walker et al. (2015). It must consider the
rank of the unit in light of the fact that its duration is that of an
average human lifespan. Lastly, such a proposal should recognize
that events of a proposed Anthropocene are those directly
observed and precisely dated with human chronometers and
calendars, and would not be interpreted from its marginal and
impoverished stratigraphic record. The fundamental question
that should be addressed in the proposal is this difference between
the character of the Anthropocene and that of the chronostratigraphic units of the ICS chart.
Consideration of a proposal by the ICS Subcommission on
Quaternary Stratigraphy and possibly then by the entire ICS will
involve extensive discussion among voting members. Such discussions educate the voting members as they study the proposal, and
such discussion can and should be open to those who are not
voting members. Indeed, this was the nature of the discussion in
2008–2009 that preceded the ICS vote on definition of the
Quaternary System and redefinition of the Pleistocene series. It is
hoped that the audience of this article becomes interested and
contributes to the discussion. All opinions are welcome, but all
positions and arguments are subject to challenge. It is in this
manner that the ICS will give careful consideration to a formal
proposal when submitted.
Brian Pratt and Phillip Gibbard provided reviews of the
submitted manuscript. Earlier drafts were reviewed by Phillip
Gibbard, Martin Head, and Mike Walker. We appreciate their
thorough reviews and valuable suggestions. This article has been
peer reviewed and approved for publication consistent with USGS
Fundamental Science Practices (
Al-Rousan, S., Pätzold, J., Al-Moghrabi, S., and Wefer, G., 2004, Invasion of
anthropogenic CO2 recorded in planktonic foraminifera from the
northern Gulf of Aquaba: International Journal of Earth Sciences, v. 93,
p. 1066–1076, doi: 10.1007/s00531-004-0433-4.
Berner, R.A., 1998, The carbon cycle and CO2 over Phanerozoic time: The role
of land plants: Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London,
Series B, Biological Sciences, v. 353, p. 75–82, doi: 10.1098/rstb.1998.0192.
Berner, R.A., and Canfield, D.E., 1989, A new model of atmospheric oxygen
over Phanerozoic time: American Journal of Science, v. 289, p. 333–361,
doi: 10.2475/ajs.289.4.333.
Crutzen, P.J., 2002, Geology of mankind: Nature, v. 415, p. 23, doi: 10.1038/
Finney, S.C., 2014, The “Anthropocene” as a ratified unit in the ICS
International Chronostratigraphic Chart: Fundamental issues that must
be addressed by the task group, in Waters, C.N., Zalasiewicz, J., Williams,
M., Ellis, M.A., and Snelling, A., eds., A Stratigraphical Basis for the
Anthropocene: The Geological Society, London, Special Publication 395,
p. 23–28.
Head, M.J., and Gibbard, P.L., 2015, Formal subdivision of the Quaternary
System/Period: Past, present, and future: Quaternary International, v. 383,
p. 4–35, doi: 10.1016/j.quaint.2015.06.039.
Lewis, S.L., and Maslin, M.A., 2015, Defining the Anthropocene: Nature, v. 519,
no. 7542, p. 171–180, doi: 10.1038/nature14258.
Marshall, W.A., Gehrels, W.R., Garnett, M.H., Freeman, S.P.H.T., Maden, C.,
and Xu, S., 2007, The use of “bomb spike” calibration and high-precision
AMS 14C analyses to date salt marsh sediments deposited during the last
also by other geologists, archaeologists, biologists, atmospheric
chemists, and social scientists. Finally, it must be noted that with
1945 as the beginning, it would be a geologic time unit that presently has a duration of one average human life span.
three centuries: Quaternary Research, v. 68, p. 325–337, doi: 10.1016/j
Nature, 2011, Editorial: The human epoch: Nature, v. 473, p. 254, doi: 10.1038/
Nozaki, Y., Rye, D.M., Turekian, K.K., and Dodge, R.E., 1978, A 200 year record
of carbon-13 and carbon-14 variations in a Bermuda coral: Geophysical
Research Letters, v. 5, p. 825–828, doi: 10.1029/GL005i010p00825.
Phillips, J., 1840, Palaeozoic Series: The Penny Cyclopaedia of the Society for the
Diffusion of Useful Knowledge, v. 17, p. 153–154.
Phillips, J., 1841, Saliferous System: The Penny Cyclopaedia of the Society for
the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge, v. 20, p. 354–355.
Phillips, J., 1860, Life on the Earth, its Origin and Succession: Cambridge,
Macmillan and Co., 224 p, doi: 10.5962/bhl.title.22153.
Remane, J., Bassett, M.G., Cowie, J.W., Gohrbandt, K.H., Lane, H.R.,
Michelsen, O., and Wang, N., 1996, Revised guidelines for the establish­
ment of global chronostratigraphic standards by the International
Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS): Episodes, v. 19, p. 77–81.
Ruddiman, W.F., Ellis, E.C., Kaplan, J.O., and Fuller, D.Q., 2015, Defining the
epoch we live in: Science, v. 348, no. 6230, p. 38–39, doi: 10.1126/science
Salvador, A., 1994, International Stratigraphic Guide, 2nd edition: Boulder,
Colorado, Geological Society of America and International Union of
Geological Sciences, p. 1–214.
Steffen, W., Crutzen, P.J., and McNeill, J.R., 2007, The Anthropocene: Are
humans now overwhelmingly the great forces of nature?: Ambio, v. 36,
p. 614–621, doi: 10.1579/0044-7447(2007)36[614:TAAHNO]2.0.CO;2.
Van Kranendonk, M.J., Gehling, J., and Shields, G., 2008, Precambrian, in Ogg,
J.G., Ogg, G., and Gradstein, F.M., eds., The Concise Geologic Time
Scale: New York, Cambridge University Press, p. 23–36.
Vai, G.B., 2004, The Second International Geological Congress, Bologna, 1881:
Episodes, v. 27, p. 13–20.
Walker, M.J.C., Gibbard, P.L., and Lowe, J., 2015, Comment on “When did the
Anthropocene begin? A mid-twentieth century boundary is stratigraphically
optimal” by Jan Zalasiewicz et al. (2015): Quaternary International, v. 383,
p. 204–207, doi: 10.1016/j.quaint.2015.04.007.
Waters, C.N., Zalasiewicz, J., Williams, M., Ellis, M.A., and Snelling, A., eds.,
2014a, A Stratigraphical Basis for the Anthropocene: The Geological Society,
London, Special Publication 395, 321 p.
Waters, C.N., Zalasiewicz, J., Williams, M., Ellis, M.A., and Snelling, A., 2014b,
A stratigraphical basis for the Anthropocene? in Waters, C.N., Zalasiewicz,
J., Williams, M., Ellis, M.A., and Snelling, A., eds., A Stratigraphical
Basis for the Anthropocene: The Geological Society, London, Special
Publication 395, p. 1–21.
Waters, C.N., Syvitski, J.P.M., Gałuszka, A., Hancock, G.J., Zalasiewicz, J.,
Cearreta, A., Grinewald, J., Jeandel, C., McNeill, J.R., Summerhayes, C.,
and Barnosky, A., 2015, Can nuclear weapons fallout mark the beginning
of the Anthropocene Epoch?: Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, v. 71,
p. 46–57, doi: 10.1177/0096340215581357.
Webby, B.D., 1998, Steps toward a global standard for Ordovician stratigraphy:
Newsletters in Stratigraphy, v. 36, p. 1–33.
Wolff, E.W., 2014, Ice Sheets and the Anthropocene in Waters, C.N., Zalasiewicz,
J., Williams, M., Ellis, M.A., and Snelling, A., eds., A Stratigraphical
Basis for the Anthropocene: The Geological Society, London, Special
Publication 395, p. 255–263.
Zalasiewicz, J.A., Smith, A., Brenchley, P., Evans, J., Knox, R., Riley, N., Gale, A.,
Rushton, A., Gibbard, P., Hesselbo, S., Marshall, J., Oates, M., Rawson, P.,
and Trewin, N., 2004, Simplifying the stratigraphy of time: Geology, v. 32,
p. 1–4, doi: 10.1130/G19920.1.
Zalasiewicz, J., Williams, M., Smith, A., Barry, T.L., Coe, A.L., Bown, P.R.,
Brenchley, P., Cantrill, D., Gale, A., Gibbard, P., Gregory, F.J., Hounslow,
M.W., Kerr, A.C., Pearson, P., Knox, R., Powell, J., Waters, C., Marshall,
J., Oates, M., Rawson, P., and Stone, P., 2008, Are we now living in the
Anthropocene?: GSA Today, v. 18, p. 4–8, doi: 10.1130/GSAT01802A.1.
Zalasiewicz, J., Williams, M., Fortey, R., Smith, A., Barry, T.L., Coe, A.L., Bown,
P.B., Rawson, P.F., Gale, A., Gibbard, P., Gregory, F.J., Hounslow, M.W.,
Kerr, A.C., Pearson, P., Knox, R., Powell, J., Waters, C., Marshall, J., Oates,
M., and Stone, P., 2011, Stratigraphy of the Anthropocene: Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society A, v. 369, p. 1036–1055, doi: 10.1098/
Zalasiewicz, J., Waters, C.N., Williams, M., Barnosky, A.D., Cearreta, A.,
Crutzen, P., Ellis, E., Ellis, M.A., Fairchild, I.J., Grinevald, J., Haff, P.K.,
Hajdas, I., Leinfelder, R., McNeill, J., Odada, E.O., Poirier, C., Richter,
D., Steffen, W., Summerhayes, C., Syvitski, J.P.M., Vidas, D., Wagreich,
M., Wing, S.L., Wolfe, A.P., An, Z., and Oreskes, N., 2015, When did
the Anthropocene begin? A mid-twentieth century boundary level is
stratigraphically optimal: Quaternary International, doi: 10.1016/j
Manuscript received 12 Nov. 2015; accepted 22 Nov. 2015.

The “Anthropocene” epoch: Scientific decision or political statement? M